National
Minnesota gearing up for marriage fight
In symbolic move, guv vetoes 2012 ballot measure

Donald McFarland is leading the effort for Minnesotans United for all Families (Photo courtesy of McFarland)
Supporters of LGBT rights are gearing up for yet another fight at the ballot against a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.
This time around, the theater for battle is Minnesota.
Donald McFarland, spokesperson for the new coalition known as Minnesotans United for All Families, said nearly 1,000 people have already signed up to work against the amendment on the campaign website within 48 hours of passage by the legislature.
“They are signing up by the hundreds to help us,” McFarland said. “It’s incredible actually. The outpouring of support to what happened Saturday night is as great as I have ever seen in my political career — and I’ve been doing this for 30 years.”
On Saturday, the Minnesota State House gave final approval to the proposed constitutional amendment by a vote of 70-62. The State Senate had already passed the measure.
The Republican-controlled legislature’s approval sends the measure to the state electorate. If a majority of voters approves the marriage ban in 2012, it will become part of the state constitution.
Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in Minnesota by statute, but passage of the amendment would prohibit the legislature from legalizing same-sex marriage in the future or the state courts from finding a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution.
A coalition of LGBT organizations — including national groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and Freedom to Marry as well as local groups OutFront Minnesota and Project 515— launched a new coalition, Minnesotans United for All Families, immediately upon approval of the amendment.
The plans for the nascent campaign are still being developed. An official campaign manager has yet to be named. Still, the campaign has already piqued the interest of supporters of same-sex marriage.
McFarland said the biggest goal at this point is to start a conversation with the Minnesota electorate about the love and commitment of same-sex couples and reminding voters that discrimination runs contrary to state values.
“The biggest component of the next many, many months is the fact that we’ll have an army of people, an army of volunteers, an army of smart, smart Minnesotans who want to help,” McFarland said. “That’s an advantage that we have ten-fold over the other side.”
McFarland, the de facto head of Minnesotans United for All Families until a campaign manager is selected, said he’s been involved in Minnesota politics for nearly 10 years.
In 2006, he was state director of American Voters, an organization that works to advance liberal-leaning policies and expand access to the ballot. Last year he worked as a communicators officer for the Minnesota Democratic Party.
McFarland’s LGBT portfolio includes working as the gay liaison in Philadelphia for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and serving as a board member for Project 515.
Money is already a concern for the new coalition. Proponents of the anti-gay amendment in Minnesota have pledged to raise $4.7 million to ensure its passage. McFarland said he wants to raise the amount dollar-for-dollar to thwart the effort.
“Things like fundraising goals are still being really fleshed out, but I will tell you that I am committed to raising $4.7 million to match what the other side claims it will spend,” McFarland said.
The output for the campaign is still under deliberation, but McFarland said he envisions paid television advertisements as well as additional paid media presence.
As supporters of same-sex marriage gear up for the fight, anti-gay groups, such as the Minnesota Family Council, are working for passage of the amendment.
The Minnesota Family Council had urged passage of the amendment, asserting that gays and lesbians eat human excrement, that gays and lesbians are more likely to be pedophiles and engage in bestiality, and that domestic partner benefits are a recruiting tool. The anti-gay group has since the scrubbed the language from its online promotions.
McFarland said maintaining a “respectful” tone throughout the campaign is a priority and criticized the anti-gay group’s tactics in the debate.
“It’s just vile language,” McFarland said. “It has no place here. It certainly has no place in Minnesota.”
The Minnesota Family Council didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s requests for comment for this article.
Polling on the amendment in Minnesota is limited, but is promising for those working to defeat the measure. A poll published May 13 by the Minnesota Star Tribune found that 55 percent of respondents oppose adding such language banning same-sex marriage to the state constitution while 39 percent favor such a measure.
McFarland said he thinks the polling is “absolutely” comforting news, but shouldn’t be seen as a guarantee that Minnesota voters will reject the proposed constitutional amendment.
“A year-and-a-half is a long time, so who knows?” McFarland said. “We want to beat this ballot question and we’re going to do everything we can to do that.”
Issac Wood, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said the 2012 presidential election — and the strength of President Obama — may have an impact on the result of the Minnesota ballot initiative.
“Often pundits and the media talk about referendums driving voter turnout and influencing elections, but in this case we may see the reverse,” Wood said. “If Obama is able to win a sizable victory in Minnesota again in 2012, which he won by 10 percentage points in 2008, perhaps he could draw enough socially liberal voters to the polls to defeat the marriage amendment as well.”
Wood said based on the history of the marriage ballot initiatives, Minnesota voters may approve the amendment. Still, he observed that national opinion on marriage has been evolving rapidly in the past year.
“Public opinion on the issue seems to be turning recently, with new polls showing nationwide approval of gay marriage on the rise,” Wood said. “Whether that approval has risen quickly enough to stem the tide of marriage amendments remains to be seen.”
Although there are promising poll numbers, a victory at the polls on the marriage issue is an extremely rare feat for LGBT rights supporters. Each time that a ban on same-sex marriage has come to voters at the state level, it has almost always been approved.
In 2006, Arizona voters rejected an amendment that would have made a ban on same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions part of the state constitution. However, voters passed a similar amendment in 2008 that banned only same-sex marriage.
Despite the dismal batting average, McFarland said he plans to draw on lessons from those earlier battles and has had conversations with those who’ve gone before him.
“We’re currently talking to others in other states that have gone before us in these battles over same-sex couples’ ability to get married,” McFarland said. “We very much intend to be mindful of all of them as we move forward.”
Prominent Minnesotans have already spoken out against the amendment. On Wednesday, Gov. Mark Dayton (D) penned a symbolic veto. Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, he doesn’t have the authority as governor to stop the initiative from becoming part of state law.
“Although I do not have the power to prevent this divisive and destructive constitutional amendment from appearing on the Minnesota ballot in November 2012, the legislature sent it to me in the form of a bill,” Dayton said. “Thus, symbolic as it may be, I am exercising my legal responsibility to either sign it or veto it. Without question, I am vetoing it.”
McFarland said he appreciates Dayton’s vocal opposition to the amendment — and said the governor was speaking out against it even before the legislature gave final approval — but he said he doesn’t think Dayton will play a large role in the campaign against the initiative.
“He’s the governor and his job is to be governor, not to be part of the campaign,” McFarland said. “His campaign was last year. Will he speak out about this issue? I believe he will because he feels passionately about this, like so many other Minnesotans.”
Another prominent politician from Minnesota has voiced a similar objection. On Monday, U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) also slammed the amendment in a statement to media outlets.
“Every Minnesotan deserves dignity and equal treatment under the law, and our state’s same-sex couples should have the same right to marry as anyone else — period,” Franken said. “This amendment would do nothing more than write discrimination into our state’s constitution and add to the barriers same-sex couples already face to the full recognition of their families. I’m hopeful that common sense and compassion will prevail and that this amendment will be defeated.”
Also earlier this week, White House spokesperson Shin Inouye issued a statement to the Washington Blade on President Obama’s position on the measure.
“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples or to take such rights away,” Inouye said. “While he believes this is an issue best addressed by the states, he also believes that committed gay couples should have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.”
The statement doesn’t explicitly mention the proposed constitutional amendment in Minnesota. Additionally, the statement reaffirms Obama’s lack of support for same-sex marriage rights by saying the issue is “best addressed by the states.”
McFarland said he’s “thrilled” the White House issued a statement, but dodged on whether he’d like to see more from Obama over the course of the campaign against the amendment.
“I really have no answer to that,” McFarland said. “I’m not going to make a call in the press to the White House. I’m not comfortable with that.”
New York
Grace Meng sharply criticizes DOJ over hospital settlements
N.Y. congresswoman spoke with the Blade this week
Few things have riled up Republicans in power like the ongoing fight to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
The Trump-Vance administration has been clear in making the fight against transgender rights, healthcare, and visibility a priority as they enter their “lame duck” phase of the presidency.
With the midterms looming, they are hoping scapegoating trans children — as they did in 2020, only for it to grow into a core national party strategy in the following elections — will save them from a less-than-secure control of the federal government like they’ve had since Trump took office.
In the past year, numerous deals have been struck between hospitals that have provided gender-affirming care to minors and the Justice Department to halt any further care.
While Republican pundits and conservative voices continue to accuse these hospitals — like NYU Langone and Mount Sinai Health System — of committing what they contend are atrocities against these children, large portions of gender-affirming care for minors involve social transitions and puberty blockers, which are reversible.
The Washington Blade spoke with Congresswoman Grace Meng, who represents New York’s Sixth Congressional District and is the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, to discuss whether these ongoing settlements between hospitals and the Trump-run Justice Department are legal.
In her role as the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Meng oversees funding for Justice Department and a slew of other federal agencies. The position gives her the power to look behind the coercion, examine how things are being done, and question the policies and actions of these federal powers in a way many other members of Congress cannot.
Meng said the Justice Department’s actions against hospitals providing gender-affirming care are part of what she sees as a broader pattern of institutions — under the control of this president — targeting LGBTQ people.
“Unfortunately this is not the first time that the DOJ is weaponizing the agency to target our communities, and our LGBTQ+ community, especially our young people, are unfortunately yet another victim of that,” Meng told the Blade. “The real victims are the actual patients and families who are losing a trusted provider.”
She argued that one prong of this ongoing situation is the way the DOJ is going about these “wins” — through pressure rather than through going to court to find actual wrongdoings.
“This DOJ knows that they can’t win in the courts based on the merit of these types of actions, so they are just working by bullying and using coercion to cheat their way through getting what they want,” she said.
She pointed to the use of litigation, subpoenas, and reputational damage against the hospitals as part of that pressure campaign.
“They know that they can’t prove any wrongdoing in court, so they’re just using the threat of prolonged litigation, subpoenas for patients’ records and trying to damage reputations of these institutions as they’ve been cutting funding for them.”
The hospitals involved so far include NYU Langone Hospitals in New York, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, Connecticut Children’s Hospital in Connecticut, and Texas Children’s Hospital in Texas.
Meng said the settlements are part of a broader strategy by the Justice Department.
“This is a part of their larger deliberate strategy across the country. They’ve obviously gone after NYU Langone. They’ve gone after Mount Sinai in my state, and they’re doing this in other states as well.”
When asked about the agreements being reached between the Justice Department and hospitals, Meng was direct.
“I think these are forced settlements. Absolutely,” Meng said.
Meng described the federal government’s involvement in individual trans healthcare decisions as an intrusion into private medical decisions.
“This is cruel. It’s a cruel form of coercion. It’s a form of cheating,” she went on, comparing this to the ongoing fight for reproductive freedom in the country. “Just like when we’re talking about reproductive rights, right? It’s an invasion of privacy. These are confidential patient records.”
Meng said the federal government should not be involved in decisions between families and their doctors.
“President Trump and the federal government do not belong in a hospital, helping to make decisions that are very personal and sensitive to every single family. They should not be involved in these decisions.”
She said the settlements could leave families without access to healthcare they need.
“Their way of forcing these settlements and leaving so many without the healthcare that they really need is really just devastating.”
Meng said the impact is already being felt by families in her district and across New York.
“The human impact, the impact on our families, on our constituents here in Queens and throughout New York, is really hurtful.”
Meng framed the issue as part of what she described as a larger pattern within the Trump-Vance administration of attacking the most vulnerable.
“If you ask me to sum up this administration in one word, it would be cruelty,” she said. “They feel like they have a right to decide who is American enough in this country, and who is good enough, and who is deserving enough.”
She went further, saying Trump is “literally acting as a dictator.”
She contrasted his leadership with that of a traditional public servant.
“Most public servants wake up every day thinking of ways that they can make people’s lives better, how they can help people. This administration and this action is no different. It wakes up and thinks of a new way to target a different community every day.”
As the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Meng said Congress has tools available to examine how the Justice Department operates and spends federal money.
“The purpose of our 12 subcommittees is to have direct oversight and leverage as Congress members, as the third branch of government, over how the Department of Justice spends our taxpayers’ money.”
One crucial thing Meng pointed out about being on this committee is the fact that much of the work of appropriations is bipartisan and is entirely within the power of Congress via the Constitution.
“We need the White House to respect the constitutional process that the Appropriations Committee goes through,” she said. “We write the Appropriations Law. It’s between Republican and Democratic Congress members.”
When asked about the funding from the settlements — and the continued funding for an increasingly looked-down-upon DOJ — she said she is seeking greater transparency into how federal money is being spent.
“I think that both sides will end up wanting more transparency into the money, how the money is spent.”
Meng said Congress has the legal authority to place requirements on the Justice Department through appropriations legislation.
“We have the legal authority to include language that helps write the DOJ and other agencies, but the DOJ’s budget, and so we will certainly exercise that authority whether or not we’re in the majority.”
She also pointed to the possibility of Democrats taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives after the midterms.
“Hopefully, as we’re in the majority after November, we will be able to have more teeth and more ability to apply that pressure and to write the bill in a way that is transparent and doesn’t harm our families.”
Despite the growing public agitation and disappointment over these settlements, Meng said there is not yet a specific schedule for congressional hearings on the issue, but that it may come after the midterms.
“We don’t have a timeline of hearings and specific topics, but CJS is everything under Commerce, Justice, and Science-related agencies,” she said. “Hopefully, when House Democrats control the House and maybe even the Senate, that we’ll be able to claw back some of their overreach.”
Meng also criticized what she described as a Justice Department operating outside the traditional boundaries of the agency.
“They can’t operate as a rogue agency or as a personal law firm of this president, in the way that they’re doing now. Using subpoenas, threatening prosecutions, these settlements — they are tools that are being used, I believe, unethically and illegally.”
Meng said trans children and their families could continue to face the consequences of the administration’s actions as the Justice Department expands its efforts.
“These are maybe low-hanging fruit or easy targets for the administration, but I can see them going after institutions in other states as they started to do as well.”
She said members of Congress have a responsibility to reassure affected families that they are not alone.
“Our job, whether it’s a representative for my Queens families, but for families across America too, is to let them know that I and my colleagues, many of my colleagues, are standing with them.”
“We are still with them, especially with the patients and the families affected by the NYU Langone deal, but any of these institutions and how they’re hurting them.”
Meng said she wants to achieve that through partnerships outside of government.
“We’re gonna do our best to expand partnership with organizations on the ground to make sure that they’re getting the support and the care that they need.”
While talking to the Blade, Meng also raised broader concerns about the relationship between Congress and the executive branch.
“This administration has definitely not followed the Constitution, and I know that there are pending lawsuits,” she said.
Just this week, the Trump-Vance administration was taken to court over what CNN, POLITICO and MS NOW alleged were violations of their First Amendment rights.
Meng said the administration has not treated Congress as an independent branch of government.
“They [the president] do not act as if Congress is a third branch of government. They think and act like Congress works for them, like they’re a part of their agencies that they’re weaponizing.”
Meng said she believes the public has become more aware of the administration’s actions, but that there is still work to do in explaining how those actions unfold.
“I think that the American people’s eyes have been opened a little more under this administration than in past ones … There’s definitely more room to continue to educate the public as to what this administration is doing.”
For Meng, the debate over trans healthcare ultimately comes down to the families affected by the decisions being made in Washington.
“What’s most important is not just the legalese that everyone’s debating these days when news like this comes out. We have to remember that there are real human beings, real families that are being impacted,” she said. “There are people crying behind closed doors in their homes, and they don’t know literally what they can do or where they will call next to get the care that they need and that they want.”
Meng said lawmakers have a responsibility to address the issue legislatively while also supporting families in their communities.
“It’s our job in Washington, in the capital, to fight these fights legislatively. But in our home districts and in our communities, it’s our job to reassure these families that we’re there for them, and that we’re going to be creative, and we’re going to find new partnerships and expand existing ones to make sure that our families have a path forward.”
She said local and state governments are also being forced to find ways to respond — and, in many cases, end up being some of the only places where protections can happen.
“Our local legislators and many of our communities, on the city level, municipal level, and the state level, they’re looking for more funding options, and a lot of them, including in New York, have had to step up in major ways.”
“Everyone has to step up in newer and more creative ways.”
Ultimately, Meng said the focus should remain on the families affected by the decisions.
“But at the end of the day, it’s the families that are impacted that we’re doing this for,” she said.
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the U.S., issued a statement this week following the announcement of more settlements.
“This is nothing less than a crisis for families and transgender youth. Since day one, Trump and his callous administration have used the full force of the federal government to come after transgender young people, their families and their doctors — and far too many hospitals are complying and abandoning their patients. Now, even in states with policies that protect transgender people, the options for parents to get their children best-practice, and potentially life-saving healthcare, are dwindling day by day,” HRC President Kelley Robinson said.
“This is the exact outcome Trump wants to see — and this cruelty shouldn’t be lost on anyone who has ever had to make difficult decisions about how to safeguard their child’s health and well-being. Our thoughts are with the countless families across the country who feel scared and under siege. We will not stop fighting until everyone can have access to the healthcare they need.”
While the Blade had her, they also asked about House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), and his decision to send members of Congress home rather than hold a vote on impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in part over his trans military ban, which has left thousands of highly skilled, ready and able workers sitting on the sidelines awaiting the courts to tell them if they are guaranteed the right to fight on behalf of the country.
“I can’t take credit for this, but someone called it the Hegseth holiday,” Meng said. “This speaker, every time there’s a tough vote, instead of acting as a leader and a speaker, he just calls it quits and he sends us home.”
“I believe — and I’m sure he does — that we had enough votes to impeach Hegseth, and he didn’t want to do it. So off we go.”
National
Philadelphia event to launch 2026 LGBT History Month
Dr. Fauci to be honored as 31 LGBT ‘Icons’ are announced
Equality Forum, the Philadelphia-based group that organizes the nation’s annual LGBT History Month in October, is scheduled to launch the 2026 LGBT History Month at a VIP Reception on Sept. 27.
The event, to be held at Philadelphia’s Independence Visitor Center, will honor Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases who is credited with playing a leading role in the fight against HIV/AIDS and COVID-19. Equality Forum was to present Fauci with its International Role Model Award.
The Equality Forum, which operates programs focusing on LGBT history and the people who play a leading role in historic undertakings, will also present its Frank Kameny Award to Erica Deuso, who in 2025 won election as the first openly transgender mayor in the state of Pennsylvania as mayor of the town of Downington, Pa.
A statement released by the Equality Forum points out that LGBT History Month, held each year, celebrates the achievements of 31 lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender icons throughout the month of October. “Each day in October, a new LGBT icon is featured with a video, bio, bibliography, downloadable images, and other resources,” the statement says.
Although the statement releases the name and a short background description of each of this year’s 31 LGBT icons, the icons were scheduled to be officially announced and honored at the Sept. 27 event.
“The LGBT community is the only community worldwide that is not taught its history at home, in public schools or in religious institutions,” the statement says. “LGBT History Month provides role models, builds community and makes the civil rights statement about our extraordinary national and international contributions,” it says.
This year’s Icons include designer Calvin Klein, media mogul Barry Diller, U.S. Senate hopeful Chris Pappas, and perhaps most notably President Abe Lincoln.
Additional information about the event and a list of the 2026 LGBT Icons can be accessed at lgbthistorymonth.com.
Netherlands
Dutch prime minister visits Stonewall Inn
Rob Jetten is the Netherlands’ first openly gay prime minister
Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten on Monday visited the Stonewall Inn in New York.
“The Stonewall Inn is not just a gay bar in New York, but the place where in 1969 riots took place as a reaction to years of discrimination and police violence,” wrote Jetten on X. “This is seen as the starting point of the global LGBTIQ+ emancipation and activism. Nowadays, the bar is a national monument, dedicated to the LGBTIQ+ rights movement.”
“For me, it is impressive and moving to be here tonight. And also fitting, because the defense of human rights is an important part of our foreign policy,” he added. “The Netherlands stands alongside the Stonewall Inn community when it comes to everyone’s right to live openly, safely, and with pride, no matter who you are or who you love.”
De Stonewall Inn is niet zomaar een gay bar in New York, maar de plaats waar in 1969 rellen plaatsvonden als reactie op jarenlange discriminatie en geweld van de politie. Dit wordt gezien als startpunt van de wereldwijde lhbtiq+-emancipatie en activisme. Tegenwoordig is de bar… pic.twitter.com/hJmFYjF91Z
— Rob Jetten (@MinPres) September 23, 2026
Jetten in February became the Netherlands’s first openly gay prime minister.
He opened last month’s World Pride Human Rights Conference in Amsterdam. Jetten also participated in a panel with former Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, former San Marino Captain Regent Paolo Rondelli, and other current and former heads of government who are gay or lesbian.
Jetten is scheduled to speak to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday.
-
National5 days agoFor lesbian victims of domestic violence, competent care is scare
-
Health5 days agoUnited States Conference on HIV/AIDS grapples with federal budget cuts
-
Commentary4 days agoWashington Blade responds to concerns over White House pool duties
-
United Nations5 days agoUN human rights chief sounds alarm over ‘comprehensive onslaught’ against LGBTQ rights
